1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEX HORN, LANCE AYTMAN, and Case No. 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM KEITH HOOKER, 12 ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED Plaintiffs, MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS 13 v. (Doc. 111) 14 KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY 15 LLC, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Currently before the Court is a motion to amend the pleadings filed by Plaintiffs Alex 19 Horn, Lance Aytman, and Keith Hooker on January 19, 2024. (Doc. 111.) Defendant Kraft 20 Heinz Food Company LLC filed a statement of non-opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion on January 21 23, 2024. (Doc. 114.) The matter is deemed submitted on the record. L.R. 230(g). For the 22 reasons that follow, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the pleadings will be GRANTED. 23 DISCUSSION 24 Plaintiffs filed the original complaint in this action on August 19, 2021. (Doc. 1.) 25 Defendant answered the complaint on October 26, 2021. (Doc. 13.) Plaintiffs now seek leave to 26 file an amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). The purpose of the 27 amendment is to (1) remove Plaintiff Aytman’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional 28 distress, but not Plaintiff Horn’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress; (2) remove 1 Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendant failed to provide them with a full copy of their personnel records 2 in violation of Cal. Lab. Code§ 1198.5; (3) remove Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendant failed to 3 provide them with their pay records in violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 226; and (4) update the 4 caption and signature block to include all current attorneys of record. (Doc. 111 at ¶ 2.) 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), which addresses amendments to pleadings, is the 6 appropriate mechanism for a plaintiff to eliminate some but not all claims without dismissing any 7 of the defendants. See Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Service, 403 F.3d 683, 8 687-88 (9th Cir. 2005). Here, however, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend under Rule 15(a)(2) 9 comes after expiration of the Scheduling Conference Order deadline for amendment to the 10 pleadings.1 (Doc. 19.) As a result, the Court must first apply the standard for amending a 11 scheduling order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, before it may evaluate if amendment 12 is appropriate under Rule 15(a). Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 13 2000) (finding district court correctly addressed motion for leave to amend under Rule 16 because 14 it had issued a pretrial scheduling order that established a timetable for amending the pleadings 15 and the motion was filed after the deadline had expired); Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 16 605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999) (“[O]nce the district court has filed a pretrial scheduling order pursuant 17 to Rule 16 which establishes a timetable for amending pleadings, a motion seeking to amend 18 pleadings is governed first by Rule 16(b), and only secondarily by Rule 15(a).”). 19 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified 20 only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also Green Aire 21 for Air Conditioning W.L.L. v. Salem, No. 1:18-cv-00873-LJO-SKO, 2020 WL 58279, at *3 (E.D. 22 Cal. Jan. 6, 2020) (“Requests to modify a scheduling order are governed by Rule 16(b)(4) of the 23 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that a court may modify a scheduling order 24 ‘only for good cause.’”). The good cause inquiry under Rule 16(b) primarily considers the 25
26 1 Plaintiffs indicate that on January 27, 2023, the Court ordered the dates from the original Scheduling Order be extended for five months and, as such, the deadline to file pretrial motions was extended to 27 January 26, 2024. (Doc. 111 at ¶ 1, citing Doc. 56.) While Plaintiffs correctly identify the extended deadline for pretrial motions, the Court did not extend the February 4, 2022 deadline for stipulated 28 amendments or motions to amend the pleadings. (See Docs. 19, 56.) 1 diligence of the party seeking to modify the scheduling order. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 2 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court may modify the schedule “if it cannot 3 reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. at 609. If there is 4 good cause to modify the scheduling order pursuant to Rule 16(b), then the Court will “turn to 5 Rule 15(a) to determine whether the movant’s requested amendment to the pleading should be 6 granted.” Ramos v. FCA US LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00973, 2019 WL 2106172, at *5 (E.D. Cal. May 7 14, 2019) (citing Jackson, 186 F.R.D. at 607). 8 Plaintiffs do not address the good cause standard, noting only that certain deadlines were 9 previously extended by the Court and that the proposed amendment will clarify Plaintiffs’ claims. 10 (Doc. 111 at ¶¶ 1, 2.) Nevertheless, the Court recognizes that the proposed amendment seeks to 11 eliminate claims, which will promote the interests of justice and efficiency. These interests 12 warrant the exercise of this Court’s discretion to modify the scheduling order. See FMC Corp. v. 13 Vendo Co., 196 F. Supp. 2d 1023, 1030 (E.D. Cal. 2002) (“The decision to modify a scheduling 14 order is within the broad discretion of the district court.”). The Court therefore turns to Rule 15 15(a) to determine whether amendment to the pleading should be granted. 16 Rule 15(a) provides that a court “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so 17 requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The United States Supreme Court has stated:
18 [i]n the absence of any apparent or declared reason—such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure 19 deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc. —the 20 leave sought should, as the rules require, be “freely given.” 21 Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The intent of the rule is to “facilitate decision on the 22 merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.” Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Center of S. Nev., 23 649 F.3d 1143, 1152 (9th Cir. 2011). Consequently, the “policy of favoring amendments to 24 pleadings should be applied with ‘extreme liberality.’” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 25 (9th Cir. 1981).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEX HORN, LANCE AYTMAN, and Case No. 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM KEITH HOOKER, 12 ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED Plaintiffs, MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS 13 v. (Doc. 111) 14 KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY 15 LLC, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Currently before the Court is a motion to amend the pleadings filed by Plaintiffs Alex 19 Horn, Lance Aytman, and Keith Hooker on January 19, 2024. (Doc. 111.) Defendant Kraft 20 Heinz Food Company LLC filed a statement of non-opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion on January 21 23, 2024. (Doc. 114.) The matter is deemed submitted on the record. L.R. 230(g). For the 22 reasons that follow, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the pleadings will be GRANTED. 23 DISCUSSION 24 Plaintiffs filed the original complaint in this action on August 19, 2021. (Doc. 1.) 25 Defendant answered the complaint on October 26, 2021. (Doc. 13.) Plaintiffs now seek leave to 26 file an amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). The purpose of the 27 amendment is to (1) remove Plaintiff Aytman’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional 28 distress, but not Plaintiff Horn’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress; (2) remove 1 Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendant failed to provide them with a full copy of their personnel records 2 in violation of Cal. Lab. Code§ 1198.5; (3) remove Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendant failed to 3 provide them with their pay records in violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 226; and (4) update the 4 caption and signature block to include all current attorneys of record. (Doc. 111 at ¶ 2.) 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), which addresses amendments to pleadings, is the 6 appropriate mechanism for a plaintiff to eliminate some but not all claims without dismissing any 7 of the defendants. See Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Service, 403 F.3d 683, 8 687-88 (9th Cir. 2005). Here, however, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend under Rule 15(a)(2) 9 comes after expiration of the Scheduling Conference Order deadline for amendment to the 10 pleadings.1 (Doc. 19.) As a result, the Court must first apply the standard for amending a 11 scheduling order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, before it may evaluate if amendment 12 is appropriate under Rule 15(a). Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 13 2000) (finding district court correctly addressed motion for leave to amend under Rule 16 because 14 it had issued a pretrial scheduling order that established a timetable for amending the pleadings 15 and the motion was filed after the deadline had expired); Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 16 605, 607 (E.D. Cal. 1999) (“[O]nce the district court has filed a pretrial scheduling order pursuant 17 to Rule 16 which establishes a timetable for amending pleadings, a motion seeking to amend 18 pleadings is governed first by Rule 16(b), and only secondarily by Rule 15(a).”). 19 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), a scheduling order “may be modified 20 only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also Green Aire 21 for Air Conditioning W.L.L. v. Salem, No. 1:18-cv-00873-LJO-SKO, 2020 WL 58279, at *3 (E.D. 22 Cal. Jan. 6, 2020) (“Requests to modify a scheduling order are governed by Rule 16(b)(4) of the 23 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that a court may modify a scheduling order 24 ‘only for good cause.’”). The good cause inquiry under Rule 16(b) primarily considers the 25
26 1 Plaintiffs indicate that on January 27, 2023, the Court ordered the dates from the original Scheduling Order be extended for five months and, as such, the deadline to file pretrial motions was extended to 27 January 26, 2024. (Doc. 111 at ¶ 1, citing Doc. 56.) While Plaintiffs correctly identify the extended deadline for pretrial motions, the Court did not extend the February 4, 2022 deadline for stipulated 28 amendments or motions to amend the pleadings. (See Docs. 19, 56.) 1 diligence of the party seeking to modify the scheduling order. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, 2 Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The Court may modify the schedule “if it cannot 3 reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. at 609. If there is 4 good cause to modify the scheduling order pursuant to Rule 16(b), then the Court will “turn to 5 Rule 15(a) to determine whether the movant’s requested amendment to the pleading should be 6 granted.” Ramos v. FCA US LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00973, 2019 WL 2106172, at *5 (E.D. Cal. May 7 14, 2019) (citing Jackson, 186 F.R.D. at 607). 8 Plaintiffs do not address the good cause standard, noting only that certain deadlines were 9 previously extended by the Court and that the proposed amendment will clarify Plaintiffs’ claims. 10 (Doc. 111 at ¶¶ 1, 2.) Nevertheless, the Court recognizes that the proposed amendment seeks to 11 eliminate claims, which will promote the interests of justice and efficiency. These interests 12 warrant the exercise of this Court’s discretion to modify the scheduling order. See FMC Corp. v. 13 Vendo Co., 196 F. Supp. 2d 1023, 1030 (E.D. Cal. 2002) (“The decision to modify a scheduling 14 order is within the broad discretion of the district court.”). The Court therefore turns to Rule 15 15(a) to determine whether amendment to the pleading should be granted. 16 Rule 15(a) provides that a court “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so 17 requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The United States Supreme Court has stated:
18 [i]n the absence of any apparent or declared reason—such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure 19 deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc. —the 20 leave sought should, as the rules require, be “freely given.” 21 Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The intent of the rule is to “facilitate decision on the 22 merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.” Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Center of S. Nev., 23 649 F.3d 1143, 1152 (9th Cir. 2011). Consequently, the “policy of favoring amendments to 24 pleadings should be applied with ‘extreme liberality.’” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 25 (9th Cir. 1981). 26 Courts consider five factors in determining whether justice requires allowing amendment 27 under Rule 15(a): “bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, 28 and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted); Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 2 1995) (citing Western Shoshone Nat’l Council v. Molini, 951 F.2d 200, 204 (9th Cir. 1991)). 3 These factors are not of equal weight as prejudice to the opposing party has long been held to be 4 the most critical factor in determining whether to grant leave to amend. Eminence Capital, LLC 5 v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (“As this circuit and others have held, it is 6 the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party that carries the greatest weight”); Jackson v. 7 Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Prejudice to the opposing party is the 8 most important factor.”). Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining factors, a 9 presumption exists under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend. Eminence Capital, 316 10 F.3d at 1052. 11 Plaintiffs here substantively seek to remove Plaintiff Aytman’s claim for negligent 12 infliction of emotional distress and to remove their claims made pursuant to Cal Lab. Code §§ 13 226 and 1198.5. Defendant does not oppose removal of these claims. On this record, the Court 14 concludes that there will be little prejudice, if any, in permitting Plaintiffs to amend their 15 complaint to remove the identified claims. None of the remaining factors overcome the 16 presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ 17 request for leave to amend the pleadings will be granted. 18 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 19 For the reasons discussed above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 20 1. Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Amend the Pleadings (Doc. 111) is GRANTED; 21 2. Within five (5) court days after issuance of this Order, Plaintiffs shall file their 22 Amended Complaint, a copy of which was attached as Exhibit A to the motion; and 23 3. Defendant shall file an answer or other responsive pleading in compliance with the 24 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any relevant Local Rules following electronic service of the 25 Amended Complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED. 26
27 Dated: January 24, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28